https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5605-7 Regular Article - Experimental Physics
Measurement of longitudinal flow decorrelations in Pb+Pb
collisions at
√
s
NN
= 2.76 and 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector
ATLAS Collaboration
CERN, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
Received: 7 September 2017 / Accepted: 1 February 2018 / Published online: 19 February 2018 © CERN for the benefit of the ATLAS collaboration 2018. This article is an open access publication
Abstract Measurements of longitudinal flow correlations are presented for charged particles in the pseudorapidity range|η| < 2.4 using 7 µb−1and 470µb−1of Pb+Pb col-lisions at√sNN= 2.76 and 5.02 TeV, respectively, recorded by the ATLAS detector at the LHC. It is found that the cor-relation between the harmonic flow coefficientsvnmeasured in two separatedη intervals does not factorise into the prod-uct of single-particle coefficients, and this breaking of fac-torisation, or flow decorrelation, increases linearly with the η separation between the intervals. The flow decorrelation is stronger at 2.76 TeV than at 5.02 TeV. Higher-order moments of the correlations are also measured, and the corresponding linear coefficients for the kth-moment of thevnare found to be proportional to k forv3, but not forv2. The decorrelation effect is separated into contributions from the magnitude of vnand the event-plane orientation, each as a function ofη. These two contributions are found to be comparable. The longitudinal flow correlations are also measured betweenvn of different order in n. The decorrelations ofv2andv3are found to be independent of each other, while the decorrela-tions ofv4 andv5are found to be driven by the nonlinear contribution fromv_{2}2andv2v3, respectively.
1 Introduction
Heavy-ion collisions at RHIC and the LHC create hot, dense matter whose space-time evolution is well described by rela-tivistic viscous hydrodynamics [1,2]. Owing to strong event-by-event (EbyE) density fluctuations in the initial state, the space-time evolution of the produced matter also fluctuates event by event. These fluctuations lead to correlations of par-ticle multiplicity in momentum space in both the transverse and longitudinal directions with respect to the collision axis. Studies of particle correlations in the transverse plane have revealed strong harmonic modulation of the particle densities in the azimuthal angle: dN/dφ ∝ 1 + 2∞_{n}_{=1}vncos n(φ − n), where vn andn represent the magnitude and event-
plane angle of the nth-order harmonic flow. The measure-ments of harmonic flow coefficientsvnand their EbyE fluc-tuations, as well as the correlations betweennof different order [3–9], have placed important constraints on the proper-ties of the dense matter and on transverse density fluctuations in the initial state [10–15].
Most previous flow studies assumed that the initial con-dition and space-time evolution of the matter are boost-invariant in the longitudinal direction. Recent model studies of two-particle correlations as a function of pseudorapid-ityη revealed strong EbyE fluctuations of the flow magni-tude and phase between two well-separated pseudorapidi-ties, i.e.vn(η1) = vn(η2) (forward-backward or FB asym-metry) andn(η1) = n(η2) (event-plane twist) [16–18]. The CMS Collaboration proposed an observable based on the ratio of two correlations: the correlation betweenη and ηref and the correlation between −η and ηref. This ratio is sensitive to the correlation betweenη and −η [19]. The CMS results show that the longitudinal fluctuations lead to a linear decrease of the ratio with η, and the slope of the decrease shows a strong centrality dependence for elliptic flow v2 but very weak dependences for v3 and v4. This paper extends the CMS result by measuring several new observables based on multi-particle correlations in two or moreη intervals [20]. These observables are sensitive to the EbyE fluctuations of the initial condition in the longitudinal direction. They are also sensitive to nonlinear mode-mixing effects, e.g.v4contains nonlinear contributions that are pro-portional tov2_{2}[8,9,21–23]. Furthermore, the measurements are performed at two nucleon–nucleon centre-of-mass colli-sion energies,√sNN = 2.76 TeV and 5.02 TeV, to evaluate the√sNN dependence of the longitudinal flow fluctuations. Recent model calculations predict an increase of longitudi-nal flow fluctuations at lower √sNN [24]. Therefore, mea-surements of these observables at two collision energies can provide new insights into the initial condition along the lon-gitudinal direction and should help in the development of full three-dimensional viscous hydrodynamic models.
(a) (b)
Fig. 1 Schematic illustration of the procedure for constructing the corrlators rn|n;k(η) Eq. (2) (left panel) and Rn|n;2(η) Eq. (5) (right panel). The acceptance coverages for the ATLAS tracker used forη and reference detector used for ηrefare discussed in Sect.5
Using these new observables, this paper improves the study of the longitudinal dynamics of collective flow in three ways. Firstly, the CMS measurement, which is effectively the first moment of the correlation betweenvnin separateη intervals, is extended to the second and the third moments. Secondly, a correlation between four differentη intervals is measured to estimate the contributions from the fluctuations ofvn amplitudes as well as the contributions from fluctua-tions ofn. Thirdly, correlations between harmonics of dif-ferent order are also measured, e.g. betweenv2 andv4 in differentη intervals, to investigate how mode-mixing effects evolve with rapidity. In this way, this paper presents a mea-surement of flow decorrelation involvingv2,v3,v4andv5, using Pb+Pb collisions at√sNN = 2.76 and 5.02 TeV.
2 Observables
This section gives a brief summary of the observables measured in this paper, further details can be found in Refs. [19,20,25]. The azimuthal anisotropy of the particle production in an event is conveniently described by harmonic flow vectors Vn= vneinn,1wherevnandnare the magni-tude and phase (or event plane), respectively. The Vnare esti-mated from the observed per-particle normalised flow vector qn[5]: qn≡ iwieinφi iwi . (1)
The sums run over all particles in a givenη interval of the event, andφiandwi are the azimuthal angle and the weight assigned to the i th particle, respectively. The weight accounts for detector non-uniformity and tracking inefficiency.
The longitudinal flow fluctuations are studied using the correlation between the kth-moment of the nth-order flow
1_{As in several previous analyses [}_{26}_{,}_{27}_{] a complex number is used to}
represent the real two-dimensional flow vector.
vectors in two differentη intervals, averaged over events in a given centrality interval, rn_{|n;k}, for k= 1,2,3:
rn|n;k(η) = qkn(−η)q∗k_{n} (ηref) qk_{n(η)q}∗k n (ηref) =
[vn(−η)vn(ηref)]kcos kn(n(−η) − n(ηref))
[vn(η)vn(ηref)]kcos kn(n(η) − n(ηref)) ,
(2)
where ηref is the reference pseudorapidity common to the numerator and the denominator, the subscript “n|n; k” denotes the kth-moment of the flow vectors of order n atη, combined with the kth moment of the conjugate of the flow vector of order n atηref. The sine terms vanish in the last expression in Eq. (2) because any observable must be an even function ofn(−η) − n(ηref). A schematic illustration of the choice of theη (|η| < 2.4) and ηref(4.0 < |ηref| < 4.9) to be discussed in Sect.5, as well as the relations between dif-ferent flow vectors, are shown in the left panel of Fig.1. This observable is effectively a 2k-particle correlator between two subevents as defined in Ref. [28], and the particle multiplets containing duplicated particle indices are removed using the cumulant framework, with particle weights taken into account [20].
The observable measured by the CMS Collaboration [19] corresponds to k = 1, i.e. rn_{|n;1}. It should be noted that qn
= 0 because the event plane changes ran-domly from event to event. Hence a direct study of the correlation between +η and −η via a quantity such as
qn(+η)q∗n(−η)
/(qn(+η)
q∗_{n}(−η)) is not possible. One could also consider a quantity like qn(+η)q∗n(−η)
/ qn2(η) qn2(−η) 1_{/2}
, but the denominator would be affected by short-range correlations. Hence, it is preferable to work with quantities of the type used in Eq. (2), which give a cor-relator sensitive to the flow decorrelation betweenη and −η through the reference flow vector qk_{n}(ηref).
One important feature of Eq. (2) is that the detector effects at ηref are expected to cancel out to a great extent (see Sect. 5). To ensure a sizeable pseudorapidity gap between
the flow vectors in both the numerator and denominator of Eq. (2),ηref is usually chosen to be at large pseudorapid-ity, e.g.ηref > 4 or ηref < −4, while the pseudorapidity of qn(−η) and qn(η) is usually chosen to be close to mid-rapidity,|η| < 2.4. If flow harmonics from multi-particle correlations factorise into single-particle flow harmonics, e.g.
Vk_{n}(η)V∗k_{n} (ηref)2=v2k_{n} (η) v_{n}2k(ηref), then it is expected that rn|n;k(η) = 1. Therefore, a value of rn|n;k(η) different from 1 implies a factorisation-breaking effect due to lon-gitudinal flow fluctuations, and such an effect is generally referred to as “flow decorrelation”.
Based on the CMS measurement [19] and arguments in Ref. [20], the observable rn|n;k(η) is expected to be approx-imately a linear function ofη with a negative slope, and is sensitive to both the asymmetry in the magnitude ofvnand the twist of the event-plane angles betweenη and −η: rn|n;k(η) ≈ 1 − 2Fnr;kη, Fnr;k= F
asy n;k + F
twi
n;k, (3)
where F_{n}asy_{;k} and F_{n}twi_{;k} represent the contribution from FBvn asymmetry and event-plane twist, respectively. The rn|n;k results obtained in Ref. [19] were for k = 1 and n = 2, 3, 4. The measured F_{n}r_{;1}show only a weak dependence onηref forηref > 3 or ηref < −3 at the LHC. Measuring rn|n;kfor k> 1 provides new information on how the vnasymmetry and event-plane twist fluctuate event by event.
If the amount of decorrelation for the kth-moment of the flow vector is proportional to k, it can be shown that [20]:
rn|n;k≈ r_{n}k_{|n;1}, Fnr_{;k}≈ kFnr_{;1}. (4) Deviations from Eq. (4) are sensitive to the detailed EbyE structure of the flow fluctuations in the longitudinal direction. To estimate the separate contributions of the asymmetry and twist effects, a new observable involving correlations of flow vectors in fourη intervals is used [20]:
Rn|n;2(η) = q_{n}(−ηref)q∗_{n}(η)q_{n}(−η)q∗_{n}(ηref) qn(−ηref)q∗n(−η)qn(η)q∗n(ηref)
= vn(−ηref)vn(−η)vn(η)vn(ηref) cos n [n(−ηref) − n(ηref) + (n(−η) − n(η))] vn(−ηref)vn(−η)vn(η)vn(ηref) cos n [n(−ηref) − n(ηref) − (n(−η) − n(η))],
(5)
where the notation “2” in the subscript indicates that there are two qn and two q∗n in the numerator and denominator. A schematic illustration of the relations between different flow vectors is shown in the right panel of Fig.1. Since the effect of an asymmetry is the same in both the numerator and the denominator, this correlator is mainly sensitive to the event-plane twist effects:
Rn_{|n;2}(η) ≈ 1 − 2F_{n}R_{;2}η, F_{n}R_{;2}= F_{n}twi_{;2}. (6) Therefore, the asymmetry and twist contributions can be esti-mated by combining Eqs. (3) and (6).
Measurements of longitudinal flow fluctuations can also be extended to correlations between harmonics of different order: r2,3|2,3(η) = q_{2}(−η)q∗_{2}(ηref)q3(−η)q∗3(ηref) q_{2}(η)q∗_{2}(ηref)q3(η)q∗3(ηref) , (7) r2,2|4(η) = q2_{2}(−η)q∗_{4}(ηref) +q2_{2}(ηref)q∗4(−η) q2 2(η)q∗4(ηref)+q22(ηref)q∗4(η) , (8) r2,3|5(η) =
q_{2}(−η)q_{3}(−η)q∗_{5}(ηref)+q2(ηref)q3(ηref)q∗_{5}(−η)
q_{2}(η)q_{3}(η)q∗_{5}(ηref) +q_{2}(ηref)q3(ηref)q∗5(η) , (9)
where the comma in the subscripts denotes the combina-tion of qnof different order. If the longitudinal fluctuations for V2 and V3 are independent of each other, one would expect r2_{,3|2,3} = r2|2;1r3|3;1[20]. On the other hand, r2,2|4 and r2_{,3|5}are sensitive to theη dependence of the correlations betweenvn and event planes of different order, for exam-pleq2_{2}(−η)q∗_{4}(ηref)=v_{2}2(−η)v4(ηref) cos 4(2(−η)−4 (ηref)). Correlations between different orders have been measured previously at the LHC [8,9,23,29].
It is well established that the V4and V5 in Pb+Pb col-lisions contain a linear contribution associated with initial geometry and mode-mixing contributions from lower-order harmonics due to nonlinear hydrodynamic response [8,9,14,
21,22]:
V4= V4L+ χ4V22, V5= V5L+ χ5V2V3, (10) where the linear component VnLis driven by the correspond-ing eccentricity in the initial geometry [11]. If the linear com-ponent ofv4andv5is uncorrelated with lower-order harmon-ics, i.e. V2_{2}V∗_{4L}∼ 0 and V2V3V∗5L∼ 0, one expects [20]: r2_{,2|4}≈ r2|2;2, r2,3|5 ≈ r2,3|2,3. (11)
Furthermore, using Eq. (10) the rn|n;1 correlators involving v4andv5can be approximated by:
r4|4;1(η) ≈ V4L(−η)V∗4L(ηref) + χ2 4 V2 2(−η)V∗22 (ηref) V4L(η)V∗4L(ηref) + χ2 4 V22(η)V∗22 (ηref) , (12) r5|5;1(η) ≈ V5L(−η)V∗5L(ηref) + χ2 5 V2(−η)V∗2(ηref)V3(−η)V∗3(ηref) V5L(η)V∗5L(ηref) + χ2 5 V2(η)V∗2(ηref)V3(η)V∗3(ηref) . (13)
Therefore, both the linear and nonlinear components are important for r4_{|4;1}and r5_{|5;1}.
3 ATLAS detector and trigger
The ATLAS detector [30] provides nearly full solid-angle coverage of the collision point with tracking detectors, calorimeters, and muon chambers, and is well suited for mea-surements of multi-particle correlations over a large pseudo-rapidity range.2 The measurements were performed using the inner detector (ID), minimum-bias trigger scintillators (MBTS), the forward calorimeters (FCal), and the zero-degree calorimeters (ZDC). The ID detects charged parti-cles within|η| < 2.5 using a combination of silicon pixel detectors, silicon microstrip detectors (SCT), and a straw-tube transition-radiation tracker (TRT), all immersed in a 2 T axial magnetic field [31]. An additional pixel layer, the “insertable B-layer” (IBL) [32] installed during the 2013-2015 shutdown between Run 1 and Run 2, is used in the 5.02 TeV measurements. The MBTS system detects charged particles over 2.1 |η| 3.9 using two hodoscopes of coun-ters positioned at z = ±3.6 m. The FCal consists of three sampling layers, longitudinal in shower depth, and covers 3.2 < |η| < 4.9. The ZDC are positioned at ±140 m from the IP, detecting neutrons and photons with|η| > 8.3.
This analysis uses approximately 7 and 470 µb−1 of Pb+Pb data at √sNN = 2.76 and 5.02 TeV, respec-tively, recorded by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. The 2.76 TeV data were collected in 2010, while the 5.02 TeV data were collected in 2015.
The ATLAS trigger system [33] consists of a level-1 (L1) trigger implemented using a combination of dedicated elec-tronics and programmable logic, and a high-level trigger (HLT) implemented in general-purpose processors. The trig-ger requires signals in both ZDC or either of the two MBTS counters. The ZDC trigger thresholds on each side are set below the maximum corresponding to a single neutron. A timing requirement based on signals from each side of the MBTS was imposed to remove beam backgrounds. This trig-ger selected 7 and 22µb−1of minimum-bias Pb+Pb data at √
sNN = 2.76 TeV and √sNN = 5.02 TeV, respectively. To increase the number of recorded events from very central Pb+Pb collisions, a dedicated L1 trigger was used in 2015 to select events requiring the total transverse energy (ET) in the FCal to be more than 4.54 TeV. This ultra-central trig-ger sampled 470µb−1of Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV and was fully efficient for collisions with centrality 0–0.1% (see Sect.4).
2_{ATLAS uses a right-handed coordinate system with its origin at the}
nominal interaction point (IP) in the centre of the detector and the z-axis along the beam pipe. The x axis points from the IP to the centre of the LHC ring, and the y axis points upward. Cylindrical coordinates(r, φ) are used in the transverse plane,φ being the azimuthal angle around the beam pipe. The pseudorapidity is defined in terms of the polar angleθ
asη = − ln tan(θ/2).
4 Event and track selection
The offline event selection requires a reconstructed vertex with its z position satisfying |Zvtx| < 100 mm. For the √
sNN= 2.76 TeV Pb+Pb data, the selection also requires a time difference| t| < 3 ns between signals in the MBTS trigger counters on either side of the nominal centre of ATLAS to suppress non-collision backgrounds. A coinci-dence between the ZDC signals at forward and backward pseudorapidity is required to reject a variety of background processes such as elastic collisions and non-collision back-grounds, while maintaining high efficiency for inelastic pro-cesses. The fraction of events containing more than one inelastic interaction (pile-up) is estimated to be less than 0.1% at both collision energies. The pile-up contribution is studied by exploiting the correlation between the transverse energy ET measured in the FCal or the number of neutrons Nnin the ZDC and the number of tracks associated with a primary vertex N_{ch}rec. Since the distribution ofET or Nnin events with up is broader than that for the events without pile-up, pile-up events are suppressed by rejecting events with an abnormally largeET or Nnas a function of Nchrec.
The event centrality [34] is characterised by the ET deposited in the FCal over the pseudorapidity range 3.2 < |η| < 4.9 using a calibration employing the electromagnetic calorimeters to set the energy scale [35]. The FCalET distribution is divided into a set of centrality intervals. A centrality interval refers to a percentile range, starting at 0% relative to the most central collisions. Thus the 0–5% trality interval, for example, corresponds to the most cen-tral 5% of the events. The ultra-cencen-tral trigger mentioned in Sect.3selects events in the 0–0.1% centrality interval with full efficiency. A Monte Carlo Glauber analysis [34,36] is used to estimate the average number of participating nucle-ons, Npart, for each centrality interval. The systematic uncer-tainty in Npartis less than 1% for centrality intervals in the range 0–20% and increases to 6% for centrality intervals in the range 70–80%. The Glauber model also provides a cor-respondence between the ET distribution and sampling fraction of the total inelastic Pb+Pb cross section, allowing centrality percentiles to be set. For this analysis, a selection of collisions corresponding to 0–70% centrality is used to avoid diffraction or other processes that contribute to very periph-eral collisions. Following the convention used in heavy-ion analyses, the centrality dependence of the results in this paper is presented as a function of Npart.
Charged-particle tracks and primary vertices [37] are reconstructed from hits in the ID. Tracks are required to have pT > 0.5 GeV and |η| < 2.4. For the 2.76 TeV data, tracks are required to have at least nine hits in the silicon detectors with no missing pixel hits and not more than one missing SCT hit, taking into account the presence of known dead modules. For the 5.02 TeV data, tracks are required to have
at least two pixel hits, with the additional requirement of a hit in the first pixel layer when one is expected, at least eight SCT hits, and at most one missing hit in the SCT. In addition, for both datasets, the point of closest approach of the track is required to be within 1 mm of the primary vertex in both the transverse and longitudinal directions [38].
The efficiency,(pT, η), of the track reconstruction and track selection criteria is evaluated using Pb+Pb Monte Carlo events produced with the HIJING event generator [39]. The generated particles in each event were rotated in azimuthal angle according to the procedure described in Ref. [40] to produce harmonic flow consistent with previous ATLAS measurements [5,41]. The response of the detector was sim-ulated usingGeant 4 [42,43] and the resulting events are reconstructed with the same algorithms applied to the data. For the 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb data, the efficiency ranges from 75% atη ≈ 0 to about 50% for |η| > 2 for charged particles with pT > 0.8 GeV, falling by about 5% as pT is reduced to 0.5 GeV. The efficiency varies more strongly withη and event multiplicity. For pT > 0.8 GeV, it ranges from 75% at η ≈ 0 to 50% for|η| > 2 in peripheral collisions, while it ranges from 71% atη ≈ 0 to about 40% for |η| > 2 in central col-lisions. The tracking efficiency for the 2.76 TeV data has a similar dependence on pTandη. The efficiency is used in the particle weight, as described in Sect.5. However, because the observables studied are ratios (see Sect.2), uncertainties in detector and reconstruction efficiencies largely cancel. The rate of falsely reconstructed tracks (“fakes”) is also estimated and found to be significant only at pT < 1 GeV in central collisions, where its percentage per-track ranges from 2% at |η| < 1 to 8% at the larger |η|. The fake rate drops rapidly for higher pT and towards more peripheral collisions. The fake rate is accounted for in the tracking efficiency correction following the procedure in Ref. [44].
5 Data analysis
Measurement of the longitudinal flow dynamics requires the calculation of the flow vector qnvia Eq. (1) in the ID and the FCal. The flow vector from the FCal serves as the reference qn(ηref), while the ID provides the flow vector as a function of pseudorapidity qn(η).
In order to account for detector inefficiencies and non-uniformity, a particle weight for the i th-particle in the ID for the flow vector from Eq. (1) is defined as:
wID
i (η, φ, pT) = dID(η, φ)/(η, pT), (14)
similar to the procedure in Ref. [44]. The determination of track efficiency(η, pT) is described in Sect.4. The addi-tional weight factor dID(η, φ) corrects for variation of track-ing efficiency or non-uniformity of detector acceptance as a function ofη and φ. For a given η interval of 0.1, the
distribu-tion in azimuthal bins, N(φ, η), is built up from reconstructed charged particles summed over all events. The weight fac-tor is then obtained as dID(η, φ) ≡ N(η) /N(φ, η), where N(η) is the average of N(φ, η). This “flattening” proce-dure removes mostφ-dependent non-uniformity from track reconstruction, which is important for any azimuthal corre-lation analysis. Similarly, the weight in the FCal for the flow vector from Eq. (1) is defined as:
wFCal
i (η, φ) = dFCal(η, φ)ET,i, (15)
where ET_{,i}is the transverse energy measured in the ith tower in the FCal atη and φ. The azimuthal weight dFCal(η, φ) is calculated in narrowη intervals in a similar way to what is done for the ID. It ensures that the ET-weighted distribution, averaged over all events in a given centrality interval, is uni-form inφ. The flow vectors qn(η) and qn(ηref) are further corrected by an event-averaged offset: q_{n}−q_{n}_{evts}[8].
The flow vectors obtained after these reweighting and off-set procedures are used in the correlation analysis. The cor-relation quantities used in rn|n;kare calculated as:
qkn(η)q∗kn (ηref) ≡qkn(η)q∗kn (ηref) s −qk_{n}(η)q∗k_{n} (ηref) b, (16)
where subscripts “s” and “b” represent the correlator con-structed from the same event (“signal”) and from the mixed-event (“background”), respectively. The mixed-mixed-event quan-tity is constructed by combining qk_{n}(η) from each event with q∗k_{n} (ηref) obtained in other events with similar central-ity (within 1%) and similar Zvtx (| Zvtx| < 5 mm). The
qk_{n}(η)q∗k_{n} (ηref)_{b}, which is typically more than two orders of magnitude smaller than the corresponding signal term, is sub-tracted to account for any residual detector non-uniformity effects that result from a correlation between different η ranges.
For correlators involving flow vectors in two different η ranges, mixed events are constructed from two different events. For example, the correlation for r2_{,3|5} is calculated as:
q2(η)q3(η)q∗_{5}(ηref)≡q2(η)q3(η)q∗_{5}(ηref)_{s}
−q2(η)q3(η)q∗_{5}(ηref)_{b}. (17) The mixed-event correlator is constructed by combining q2(η)q3(η) from one event with q∗_{5}(ηref) obtained in another event with similar centrality (within 1%) and similar Zvtx (| Zvtx| < 5 mm). On the other hand, for correlators involv-ing more than two differentη ranges, mixed events are con-structed from more than two different events, one for each uniqueη range. One such example is Rn|n;2, for which each mixed event is constructed from four different events with similar centrality and Zvtx.
Table 1 The list of observables measured in this analysis
Observables Pb+Pb datasets (Tev)
rn|n;k for n= 2, 3, 4 and k = 1 2.76 and 5.02
Rn|n;2 for n= 2, 3 2.76 and 5.02
rn|n;k for n= 5 and k = 1 5.02
rn|n;k for n= 2, 3 and k = 2,3 5.02
Rn|n;2 for n= 4 5.02
r2,2|4, r2,3|5, r2,3|2,3 5.02
Most correlators can be symmetrised. For example, in a symmetric system such as Pb+Pb collisions, the condition
qk_{n}(−η)q∗k_{n} (ηref)=qk_{n}(η)q∗k_{n} (−ηref)holds. So instead of Eq. (2), the actual measured observable is:
rn|n;k(η) = qkn(−η)q∗kn (ηref) + qkn(η)q∗kn (−ηref) qk n(η)q∗kn (ηref) + qkn(−η)q∗kn (−ηref) . (18)
The symmetrisation procedure also allows further cancella-tion of possible differences betweenη and −η in the tracking efficiency or detector acceptance.
Table1gives a summary of the set of correlators mea-sured in this analysis. The analysis is performed in intervals of centrality and the results are presented as a function ofη for|η| < 2.4. The main results are obtained using 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb data. The 2010 2.76 TeV Pb+Pb data are statistically limited, and are used only to obtain rn|n;1and Rn|n;2to
com-pare with results obtained from the 5.02 TeV data and study the dependence on collision energy.
Figures2,3show the sensitivity of r2_{|2;1}and r3_{|3;1}, respec-tively, to the choice of the range ofηref. A smallerηrefvalue implies a smaller pseudorapidity gap between η and ηref. The values of rn|n;1generally decrease with decreasingηref, possibly reflecting the contributions from the dijet correla-tions [5]. However, such contributions should be reduced in the most central collisions due to large charged-particle multiplicity and jet-quenching [45] effects. Therefore, the decrease of rn|n;1 in the most central collisions may also reflect the ηref dependence of F_{n}r_{;1}, as defined in Eq. (3). In this analysis, the reference flow vector is calculated from 4.0 < ηref < 4.9, which reduces the effect of dijets and pro-vides good statistical precision. For this choice ofηrefrange, r2_{|2;1}and r3_{|3;1}show a linear decrease as a function ofη in most centrality intervals, indicating a significant breakdown of factorisation. A similar comparison for r4_{|4;1}can be found in the “Appendix”.
Figures4,5show r2_{|2;1}and r3_{|3;1}calculated for several pT ranges of the charged particles in the ID. A similar com-parison for r4_{|4;1} can be found in the “Appendix”. If the longitudinal-flow asymmetry and twist reflect global prop-erties of the event, the values of rn|n;1 should not depend strongly on pT. Indeed no dependence is observed, except for r2_{|2;1}in the most central collisions and very peripheral collisions. The behaviour in central collisions may be related to the factorisation breaking of thev2as a function of pT and
2|2;1 r 0.9 0.95 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 470 μb-1 0-0.1% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0< ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 0-5% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0< ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 5-10% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0< ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 10-20% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0< η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2|2;1 r 0.9 0.95 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 20-30% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0< η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 30-40% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0< η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 40-50% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0< η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 50-60% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0<
3|3;1 r 0.8 0.9 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 470 μb-1 0-0.1% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0< ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 0-5% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0< ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 5-10% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0< ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 10-20% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0< η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 3|3;1 r 0.8 0.9 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 20-30% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0< η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 30-40% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0< η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 40-50% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0< η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 50-60% <4.9 | ref η | 4.4< <4.4 | ref η | 4.0< <4.0 | ref η | 3.6< <3.6 | ref η | 3.2< <4.9 | ref η | 4.0<
Fig. 3 The r3|3;1(η) measured for several ηrefranges. Each panel shows the results for one centrality range. The error bars are statistical only
2|2;1 r 0.9 0.95 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 470 μb-1 0-0.1% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 0-5% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 5-10% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 10-20% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2|2;1 r 0.9 0.95 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 20-30% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 30-40% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 40-50% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 50-60% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p
3|3;1 r 0.8 0.9 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 470 μb-1 0-0.1% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 0-5% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 5-10% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 10-20% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 3|3;1 r 0.8 0.9 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 20-30% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 30-40% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 40-50% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 50-60% <1.0 GeV T 0.5< p <2.0 GeV T 1.0< p <3.0 GeV T 2.0< p <4.0 GeV T 3.0< p <3.0 GeV T 0.5< p
Fig. 5 The r3|3;1(η) measured in several pT ranges. Each panel shows the results for one centrality range. The error bars are statistical only
η [5,19]. The behaviour in peripheral collisions is presum-ably due to increasing relative contributions from jets and dijets at higher pT and for peripheral collisions. Based on this, the measurements are performed using charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 3 GeV.
6 Systematic uncertainties
Since all observables are found to follow an approximately linear decrease withη, i.e. D(η) ≈ 1−cη for a given observ-able D(η) where c is a constant, the systematic uncertainty is presented as the relative uncertainty for 1− D(η) at η = 1.2, the mid-point of theη range. The systematic uncertainties in this analysis arise from event mixing, track selection, and reconstruction efficiency. Most of the systematic uncertain-ties enter the analysis through the particle weights in Eqs. (14) and (15). In general, the uncertainties for rn_{|n;k}increase with n and k, the uncertainties for Rn|n;2increase with n, and all uncertainties are larger in the most central and more periph-eral collisions. For r2,3|2,3, r2,2|4and r2,3|5, the uncertainties are significantly larger than for the other correlators. Each source is discussed separately below.
The effect of detector azimuthal non-uniformity is accounted for by the weight factor d(η, φ) in Eqs. (14) and (15). The effect of reweighting is studied by setting the weight to unity and repeating the analysis. The results are consistent with the default (weighted) results within
statisti-cal uncertainties, so no additional systematic uncertainty is included. Possible residual detector effects for each observ-able are further removed by subtracting those obtained from mixed events as described in Sect.5. Uncertainties due to the event-mixing procedure are estimated by varying the crite-ria for matching events in centrality and zvtx. The resulting uncertainty is in general found to be smaller than the statisti-cal uncertainties. The event-mixing uncertainty for r2_{|2;k}and r3_{|3;k}is less than 1% for k = 1 and changes to about 0.4–8% for k = 2 and 0.6–10% for k = 3, while the uncertainty for r4_{|4;1}and r5_{|5;1}is in the range 1.5–3% and 5–13%, respec-tively. The uncertainty for Rn|n;2 is 1.5–6% for n = 2 and 3–14% for n = 3. The uncertainties for r2_{,3|2,3}, r2_{,2|4} and r2_{,2|5}are typically larger: 1–4%, 1.5–16% and 3–15%.
The systematic uncertainty associated with the track qual-ity selections is estimated by tightening or loosening the requirements on transverse impact parameter|d0| and lon-gitudinal impact parameter|z0sinθ| used to select tracks. In each case, the tracking efficiency is re-evaluated and the analysis is repeated. The difference is observed to be larger in the most central collisions where the flow signal is smaller and the influence of falsely reconstructed tracks is higher. The difference is observed to be in the range 0.2–12% for r2_{|2;k}and r3_{|3;k}, 1.1–2% for r4_{|4;1}, 3–6% for r5_{|5;1}, 0.5–13% for Rn|n;2, and 1–14% for r2,3|2,3, r2,2|4and r2,2|5.
From previous measurements [5,6,46], thevn signal has been shown to have a strong dependence on pT but relatively weak dependence onη. Therefore, a pT-dependent
uncer-Table 2 Systematic uncertainties in percent for 1− r2|2;kand 1− r3|3;katη = 1.2 in selected centrality intervals 1−r2|2;1 1−r2|2;2 1−r2|2;3 0–5% 20–30% 40–50% 0–5% 20–30% 40–50% 0–5% 20–30% 40–50% Event mixing (%) 0.8 0.2 0.3 2.2 0.4 0.6 6.0 0.6 2.1 Track selections (%) 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.5 0.4 0.9 9.4 1.0 2.4 Reco. efficiency (%) 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 Total (%) 1.0 0.4 0.4 2.7 0.6 1.1 12 1.2 3.2 1−r3|3;1 1−r3|3;2 1−r3|3;3 0–5% 20–30% 40–50% 0–5% 20–30% 40–50% 0–5% 20–30% Event mixing (%) 0.6 0.4 0.9 2.2 1.2 7.9 7.0 9.5 Track selections (%) 0.6 0.2 0.6 2.5 0.7 4.4 12 10 Reco. efficiency (%) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.9 1.1 1.5 Total (%) 0.9 0.5 1.1 3.4 1.5 9.1 14 14 Table 3 Systematic
uncertainties in percent for 1− R2|2;2, 1− R3|3;2, 1− r4|4;1
and 1− r5|5;1atη = 1.2 in selected centrality intervals
1−R2|2;2 1−R3|3;2 0–5% 20–30% 40–50% 0–5% 20–30% 40–50% Event mixing (%) 6.1 1.5 1.5 4.6 2.9 14 Track selections (%) 3.5 0.4 0.7 2.0 3.2 13 Reco. efficiency(%) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 Total (%) 7.1 1.6 1.7 5.1 4.4 20 1−r4|4;1 1−r5|5;1 0–5% 20–30% 40–50% 0–5% 20–30% 40–50% Event mixing (%) 1.8 1.5 2.7 13 5.1 9.8 Track selections (%) 1.5 1.1 2.0 6.3 3.6 4.6 Reco. efficiency(%) 0.3 0.3 0.6 2.2 1.6 1.3 Total (%) 2.4 1.9 3.5 15 6.5 11
tainty in the track reconstruction efficiency(η, pT) could affect the measured longitudinal flow correlation, through the particle weights. The uncertainty in the track reconstruction efficiency is due to differences in the detector conditions and known differences in the material between data and simula-tions. The uncertainty in the efficiency varies between 1% and 4%, depending onη and pT [44]. The systematic uncer-tainty for each observable in Table1is evaluated by repeating the analysis with the tracking efficiency varied up and down by its corresponding uncertainty. For rn|n;kthe uncertainties are in the range 0.1–2%, depending on n and k. For Rn|n;2 the uncertainties are in the range 0.1–1%. For r2_{,3|2,3}, r2_{,2|4} and r2_{,3|5}, the uncertainties are in the range 0.1–2%.
Due to the finite energy resolution and energy scale uncer-tainty of the FCal, the qn(ηref) calculated from the azimuthal distribution of the ET via Eqs. (1) and (15) differs from the true azimuthal distribution. However, since qn(ηref) appears in both the numerator and the denominator of the corre-lators studied in this paper, most of the effects associated
with the FCal ET response are expected to cancel out. Two cross-checks are also performed to study the influence of the FCal response. In the first cross-check, only the FCal towers with ET above the 50th percentile are used to calcu-late the qn(ηref). The |qn(ηref)| value is different from the default analysis, but the values of the correlators are found to be consistent. In the second cross-check, HIJING events with imposed flow (see Sect.4) are used to study the FCal response. The q_{n}(ηref) is calculated using both the generated ET and the reconstructed ET, and the resulting correlators are compared with each other. The results are found to be con-sistent. Accordingly, no additional systematic uncertainty is added for the FCal response.
The systematic uncertainties from the different sources described above are added in quadrature to give the total systematic uncertainty for each observable. They are listed in Tables2,3and4.
Table 4 Systematic uncertainties in percent for 1− r2,3|2,3, 1− r2,2|4and 1− r2,3|5atη = 1.2 in selected centrality intervals 1−r2,3|2,3 1−r2,2|4 1−r2,3|5 0–5% 20–30% 40–50% 0–5% 20–30% 40–50% 0–5% 20–30% 40–50% Event mixing (%) 4.1 1.7 3.2 16 1.5 2.4 15 3.4 7.8 Track selections (%) 1.4 0.5 2.0 12 1.6 1.5 14 2.0 7.4 Reco. efficiency (%) 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.5 Total (%) 4.4 1.8 3.8 21 2.2 2.9 21 4.0 11 2|2;1 r 0.95 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 0-1% -1 b μ 2.76 TeV, 7 -1 b μ 5.02 TeV,22 ATLAS Pb+Pb 0-5% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV ATLAS Pb+Pb 5-10% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV ATLAS Pb+Pb 10-20% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2|2;1 r 0.95 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 20-30% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 30-40% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 40-50% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 50-60% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV
Fig. 6 The r2|2;1(η) compared between the two collision energies. Each panel shows results from one centrality interval. The error bars and shaded
boxes are statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively
7 Results
The presentation of the results is structured as follows. Sec-tion7.1presents the results for rn|n;1and Rn|n;2and the com-parison between the two collision energies. Section7.2shows the results for rn|n;k for k > 1. The scaling relation from Eq. (4) is tested and the contributions fromvnFB asymmetry and event-plane twist are estimated. Results for the mixed-harmonic correlators, Eqs. (7)–(9), are presented in Sect.7.3
and checked for compatibility with the hydrodynamical pic-ture. The measurements are performed using charged parti-cles with 0.5 < pT < 3 GeV, and the reference flow vector is calculated with 4.0 < |ηref| < 4.9. Most results are shown for the√sNN = 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb dataset, which has better statistical precision. The results for the√sNN = 2.76 TeV Pb+Pb dataset are shown only for rn|n;1and Rn|n;2.
7.1 rn|n;1and Rn|n;2at two collision energies
Figure 6 shows r2_{|2;1} in various centrality intervals at the two collision energies. The correlator shows a linear decrease withη, except in the most central collisions. The decreasing trend is weakest around the 20–30% centrality range, and is more pronounced in both more central and more peripheral collisions. This centrality dependence is the result of a strong centrality dependence of the v2 associated with the aver-age elliptic geometry [47]. The decreasing trend at√sNN = 2.76 TeV is slightly stronger than that at√sNN= 5.02 TeV, which is expected as the collision system becomes less boost-invariant at lower collision energy [24].
Figures 7 and 8 show the results for r3_{|3;1} and r4_{|4;1}, respectively, at the two collision energies. A linear decrease as a function ofη is observed for both correlators, and the rate of the decrease is approximately independent of cen-trality. This centrality independence could be due to the fact thatv3andv4are driven mainly by fluctuations in the initial
3|3;1 r 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 0-1% -1 b μ 2.76 TeV, 7 -1 b μ 5.02 TeV,22 ATLAS Pb+Pb 0-5% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV ATLAS Pb+Pb 5-10% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV ATLAS Pb+Pb 10-20% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 3|3;1 r 0.85 0.9 0.95 1ATLAS Pb+Pb 20-30% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 30-40% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 40-50% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 50-60% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV
Fig. 7 The r3|3;1(η) compared between the two collision energies. Each panel shows results from one centrality interval. The error bars and shaded
boxes are statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively
4|4;1 r 0.8 0.9 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 0-1% -1 b μ 2.76 TeV, 7 -1 b μ 5.02 TeV,22 ATLAS Pb+Pb 0-5% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV ATLAS Pb+Pb 5-10% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV ATLAS Pb+Pb 10-20% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 4|4;1 r 0.8 0.9 1ATLAS Pb+Pb 20-30% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 30-40% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 40-50% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 50-60% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV
Fig. 8 The r4|4;1(η) compared between the two collision energies. Each panel shows results from one centrality interval. The error bars and shaded
boxes are statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively
state. The rate of the decrease is also observed to be slightly stronger at lower collision energy.
The decreasing trend of rn|n;1 for n = 2–4 in Figs. 6,
7and8indicates significant breakdown of the factorisation of two-particle flow harmonics into those between different η ranges. However, the size of the factorisation breakdown depends on the harmonic order n, collision centrality, and
collision energy. The results have also been compared with those from the CMS Collaboration [19], with theηrefchosen to be 4.4 < |ηref| < 4.9 to match the CMS choice of ηref. The two results agree very well with each other, and details are shown in the “Appendix”.
Figures9and10show R2_{|2;2}and R3_{|3;2}in several central-ity intervals. Both observables follow a linear decrease with
Fig. 9 The R2|2;2(η) compared
between the two collision energies. Each panel shows results from one centrality interval. The error bars and shaded boxes are statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively 2|2;2 R 0.95 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 0-5% -1 b μ 2.76 TeV, 7 -1 b μ 5.02 TeV,22 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5-10% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV ATLAS Pb+Pb 10-20% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2|2;2 R 0.95 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 20-30% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 30-40% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 40-50% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV Fig. 10 The R3|3;2(η)
compared between the two collision energies. Each panel shows results from one centrality interval. The error bars and shaded boxes are statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 3|3;2 R 0.8 0.9 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 0-20% -1 b μ 2.76 TeV, 7 -1 b μ 5.02 TeV,22 η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS Pb+Pb 20-40% 2.76 TeV 5.02 TeV
η and the decreasing trends are stronger at lower collision energy.
The measured rn|n;k and Rn|n;2 are parameterised with linear functions,
rn|n;k= 1 − 2Fnr;k η, Rn|n;2= 1 − 2FnR;2η, (19) where the slope parameters are calculated as linear-regression coefficients, F_{n}r_{;k} = i(1 − rn|n;k(ηi))ηi 2_{i}η2_{i} , F_{n}R_{;2}= i(1 − Rn|n;2(ηi))ηi 2_{i}η_{i}2 , (20)
which characterise the average η-weighted deviation of rn|n;1(η) and Rn|n;2(η) from unity. The sum runs over all
data points. If rn|n;k and Rn|n;2 are a linear function in η, the linear-regression coefficients are equivalent to a fit to Eq. (19). However, these coefficients are well defined even if the observables have significant nonlinear behaviour, which is the case for r2_{|2;k}and R2_{|2;2}in the 0–20% centrality range. The extracted slope parameters F_{n}r_{;1}and F_{n}R_{;2}are plotted as a function of centrality in terms of Npart, in Figs.11and
12, respectively. The values of F_{2}r_{;1}and F_{2}R_{;2}first decrease and then increase as a function of increasing Npart. The larger values in central and peripheral collisions are related to the fact thatv2is more dominated by the initial geometry fluctua-tions. The slopes for higher-order harmonics are significantly larger. As a function of Npart, a slight decrease in F_{3}r_{;1}and F_{3}R_{;2}is observed for Npart > 200, as well as an increase in F_{4}r_{;1}for Npart< 100. The values of F_{n}r_{;1}and F_{n}R_{;2}are larger
part N 0 100 200 300 400 r 2;1 F 0 0.01 0.02 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 2.76 TeV, 7 -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV,22 part N 0 100 200 300 400 r 3;1 F 0 0.02 0.04 ATLAS Pb+Pb 2.76 TeV Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV part N 0 100 200 300 400 r 4;1 F 0 0.02 0.04 ATLAS Pb+Pb 2.76 TeV Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV
Fig. 11 Centrality dependence of Fr
2;1(left panel), F3r;1(middle panel)
and Fr
4;1(right panel) for Pb+Pb at 2.76 TeV (circles) and 5.02 TeV
(squares). The error bars and shaded boxes are statistical and
system-atic uncertainties, respectively. The widths of the centrality intervals are not fixed but are optimised to reduce the uncertainty
part N 0 100 200 300 400 R 2;2 F 0 0.01 0.02 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 2.76 TeV, 7 -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV,22 part N 0 100 200 300 400 R 3;2 F 0 0.02 0.04 ATLAS Pb+Pb 2.76 TeV Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV part N 0 100 200 300 400 R 4;2 F 0 0.02 0.04 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV
Fig. 12 Centrality dependence of F_{2}R_{;2}(left panel), F_{3}R_{;2}(middle panel) and F_{4}R_{;2}(right panel) for Pb+Pb at 2.76 TeV (circles) and 5.02 TeV (squares). The error bars and shaded boxes are statistical andsystematic
uncertainties, respectively. The widths of the centrality intervals are not fixed but are optimised to reduce the uncertainty
with decreasing√sNN, as the rapidity profile of the initial state is more compressed due to smaller beam rapidity ybeam at lower√sNN. This energy dependence has been predicted for F_{n}r_{;1}in hydrodynamic model calculations [24], and it is quantified in Fig.13via the ratio of F_{2}r_{;1}values and of F_{2}R_{;2} values at the two energies. The weighted averages of the ratios calculated in the range 30< Npart< 400 are given in Table5. Compared to√sNN = 5.02 TeV, the values of F_{2}r_{;1} and F_{2}R_{;2}at√sNN = 2.76 TeV are about 10% higher, and the values of F_{3}r_{;1}and F_{4}r_{;1}are about 16% higher.
If the change of correlators with√sNNwere entirely due to the change of ybeam, then the correlators would be expected to follow a universal curve when they are rescaled by ybeam, i. e. rn|n;k(η/ybeam) and Rn|n;2(η/ybeam) should not depend on√sNN. In this case, the slopes parameters multiplified by the beam rapidity, ˆF_{n}r_{;1}≡ F_{n}r_{;1}ybeamand ˆF_{n}R_{;2} ≡ F_{n}R_{;2}ybeam, should not depend on√sNN. The beam rapidity is ybeam = 7.92 and 8.52 for√sNN = 2.76 and 5.02 TeV, respectively, which leads to a 7.5% reduction in the ratio. Figure14shows
the ratio of ˆF_{2}r_{;1}values and of ˆF_{2}R_{;2}values at the two energies, and the weighted averages of the ratios calculated in the range 30 < Npart < 400 are given in Table5. The ybeam-scaling accounts for a large part of the√sNNdependence. Compared to√sNN= 5.02 TeV, the values of ˆF_{2}r_{;1}and ˆF_{2}R_{;2}at√sNN = 2.76 TeV are about 3% higher, and the values of ˆFr
3;1 and ˆFr
4;1are about 8% higher, so this level of difference remains after accounting for the change in the beam rapidity.
7.2 Higher-order moments
The longitudinal correlations of higher-order moments of harmonic flow carry information about the EbyE flow fluc-tuations in pseudorapidity. In the simple model described in Ref. [20], the decrease in rn_{|n;k}is expected to scale with k as given by Eq. (4).
Figure 15 compares the results for r2_{|2;k} for k = 1–3 (solid symbols) with r_{2}k_{|2;1} for k = 2–3 (open symbols). The data follow the scaling relation from Eq. (4) in the most
part N 0 100 200 300 400 (5.02 TeV) r n;1 F (2.76 TeV) r n;1 F 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 ATLAS -1 b μ , 5.02 TeV 22 -1 b μ Pb+Pb, 2.76 TeV 7 n=2 n=3 n=4 part N 0 100 200 300 400 (5.02 TeV) R n;2 F (2.76 TeV) R n;2 F 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 ATLAS -1 b μ , 5.02 TeV 22 -1 b μ Pb+Pb, 2.76 TeV 7 n=2 n=3
Fig. 13 Centrality dependence of ratio of Fr
n;1values (left panel) and
F_{n}R_{;2}values (right panel) at 2.76 and 5.02 TeV. The lines indicate the average values in the range 30< Npart < 400, with the results andfit
uncertainties given by Table5. The error bars and shaded boxes are statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively
part N 0 100 200 300 400 (5.02 TeV) beam y r n;1 F (2.76 TeV) beam y r n;1 F 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 ATLAS beam scaled by y -1 b μ , 5.02 TeV 22 -1 b μ Pb+Pb, 2.76 TeV 7 n=2 n=3 n=4 part N 0 100 200 300 400 (5.02 TeV) beam y R n;2 F (2.76 TeV) beam y R n;2 F 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 ATLAS beam scaled by y -1 b μ , 5.02 TeV 22 -1 b μ Pb+Pb, 2.76 TeV 7 n=2 n=3
Fig. 14 Centrality dependence of ratio of ˆF_{n}r_{;1} ≡ F_{n}r_{;1}ybeam
val-ues (left panel) and ˆF_{n}R_{;2} ≡ F_{n}R_{;2}ybeam values (right panel) at 2.76
and 5.02 TeV. The lines indicate the average values in the range
30< Npart< 400, with the results and fit uncertainties given by Table5.
The error bars and shaded boxes are statistical and systematic uncer-tainties, respectively
Table 5 Results of the fits to the ratio of F_{n}r_{;1}, F_{n}R_{;2}, ˆF_{n}r_{;1}≡ F_{n}r_{;1}ybeamand ˆFnR;2≡ FnR;2ybeamvalues at the two energies in the range 30< Npart< 400
shown in Figs.13and14. The uncertainties include both statistical and systematic uncertainties
n= 2 n= 3 n= 4 Fr n;1(2.76 TeV)/Fnr;1(5.02 TeV) 1.100 ± 0.010 1.152 ± 0.011 1.17 ± 0.036 F_{n}R_{;2}(2.76 TeV)/F_{n}R_{;2}(5.02 TeV) 1.103 ± 0.026 1.18 ± 0.08 – ˆFr n;1(2.76 TeV)/ ˆF r n;1(5.02 TeV) 1.023 ± 0.009 1.071 ± 0.010 1.088 ± 0.033 ˆFR n;2(2.76 TeV)/ ˆFnR;2(5.02 TeV) 1.025 ± 0.024 1.10 ± 0.07 –
central collisions (0–5% centrality) wherev2is driven by the initial-state fluctuations. In other centrality intervals, where the average geometry is more important forv2, the r2_{|2;k} (k = 2 and 3) data show stronger decreases with η than r_{2}k_{|2;1}.
A similar study is performed for third-order harmonics, and the results are shown in Fig.16. The data follow approx-imately the scaling relation Eq. (4) in all centrality intervals.
To quantify the difference between rn|n;k and r_{n}k_{|n;1}, the slopes (F_{n}r_{;k}) of rn|n;kare calculated via Eqs. (19) and (20). The scaled quantities, F_{n}r_{;k}/k, are then compared with each other as a function of centrality in Fig. 17. For second-order harmonics, the data show clearly that over most of the centrality range F_{2}r_{;3}/3 > F_{2}r_{;2}/2 > F_{2}r_{;1}, implying F_{2}r_{;k} > kF_{2}r_{;1}. However, for the most central and most periph-eral collisions the quantities approach each other. On the
Correlato r 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 470 0-0.1% 2|2;1 r 2|2;2 r 2 2|2;1 r ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 0-5% 2|2;1 r 2|2;2 r 2|2;3 r 2 2|2;1 r 3 2|2;1 r ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 5-10% 2|2;1 r 2|2;2 r 2|2;3 r 2 2|2;1 r 3 2|2;1 r ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 10-20% 2|2;1 r 2|2;2 r 2|2;3 r 2 2|2;1 r 3 2|2;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Correlator 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 20-30% 2|2;1 r 2|2;2 r 2|2;3 r 2 2|2;1 r 3 2|2;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 30-40% 2|2;1 r 2|2;2 r 2|2;3 r 2 2|2;1 r 3 2|2;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 40-50% 2|2;1 r 2|2;2 r 2|2;3 r 2 2|2;1 r 3 2|2;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 50-60% 2|2;1 r 2|2;2 r 2|2;3 r 2 2|2;1 r 3 2|2;1 r
Fig. 15 The r2|2;kfor k = 1–3 compared with r_{2}k_{|2;1}for k=2–3 in various centrality intervals for Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV. The error bars and shaded boxes are statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The data points for k= 2 or 3 in some centrality intervals are rebinned to reduce the uncertainty
Correlato r 0.6 0.8 1 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 470 0-0.1% 3|3;1 r 3|3;2 r 3|3;3 r 2 3|3;1 r 3 3|3;1 r ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 0-5% 3|3;1 r 3|3;2 r 3|3;3 r 2 3|3;1 r 3 3|3;1 r ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 5-10% 3|3;1 r 3|3;2 r 3|3;3 r 2 3|3;1 r 3 3|3;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Correlator 0.6 0.8 1 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 10-20% 3|3;1 r 3|3;2 r 3|3;3 r 2 3|3;1 r 3 3|3;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 20-30% 3|3;1 r 3|3;2 r 3|3;3 r 2 3|3;1 r 3 3|3;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 30-40% 3|3;1 r 3|3;2 r 3|3;3 r 2 3|3;1 r 3 3|3;1 r
Fig. 16 The r3|3;kfor k= 1–3 compared with r_{3}k_{|3;1}for k= 2–3 in various centrality intervals for Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV. The error bars and shaded boxes are statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The data points for k= 2 or 3 in some centrality intervals are rebinned to reduce the uncertainty
Fig. 17 The values of Fr n;k/k
for k= 1,2 and 3 for n = 2 (left panel) and n= 3 (right panel), respectively. The error bars and shaded boxes are statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The widths of the centrality intervals are not fixed but are optimised to reduce the uncertainty part N 0 100 200 300 400 /k r 2;k F 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 r 2;1 F /2 r 2;2 F /3 r 2;3 F part N 0 100 200 300 400 /k r 3;k F 0 0.02 0.04 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 r 3;1 F /2 r 3;2 F /3 r 3;3 F Correlato r 0.9 0.95 1 ATLAS Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 μb-1 0-5% 2|2;2 r 2|2;2 R ATLAS 5-10% 2|2;2 r 2|2;2 R ATLAS 10-20% 2|2;2 r 2|2;2 R η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Correlator 0.9 0.95 1 ATLAS 20-30% 2|2;2 r 2|2;2 R η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS 30-40% 2|2;2 r 2|2;2 R η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS 40-50% 2|2;2 r 2|2;2 R
Fig. 18 The r2|2;2(η) and R2|2;2(η) in various centrality intervals for Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV. The error bars and shaded boxes are statistical
and systematic uncertainties, respectively
other hand, a slightly opposite trend for the third-order har-monics, F_{3}r_{;3}/3 F_{3}r_{;2}/2 F_{3}r_{;1}, i.e. F_{3}r_{;k} kF_{3}r_{;1}, is observed in mid-central collisions (150< Npart< 350).
Figures18and19compare the rn|n;2with Rn|n;2for n= 2 and n= 3, respectively. The decorrelation of Rn_{|n;2} is sig-nificantly weaker than that for the rn|n;2. This is because the Rn|n;2 is mainly affected by the event-plane twist effects, while the rn_{|n;2} receives contributions from both FB asym-metry and event-plane twist [20].
Following the discussion in Sect.2, Eqs. (3) and (6), the measured F_{n}r_{;2}and F_{n}R_{;2}values can be used to estimate the separate contributions from FB asymmetry and event-plane twist, F_{n}asy_{;2}and F_{n}twi_{;2}, respectively, via the relation:
F_{n}twi_{;2} = F_{n}R_{;2}, F_{n}asy_{;2} = F_{n}r_{;2}− F_{n}R_{;2}. (21) The results are shown in Fig.20. The contributions from the two components are similar to each other for n = 2, for
which the harmonic flow arises primarily from the average collision shape, as well as for n= 3, for which the harmonic flow is driven mainly by fluctuations in the initial geometry.
7.3 Mixed-harmonics correlation
Figure21compares the r2,3|2,3with the product of r2_{|2;1}and r3_{|3;1}. The data show that they are consistent with each other, suggesting the previously observed anticorrelation beween v2andv3is a property of the entire event [9,48], and that longitudinal fluctuations ofv2andv3are uncorrelated. Fig-ure22compares r2_{|2;2} with the mixed-harmonic correlator r2,2|4, as well as r4_{|4;1}. As discussed in Sect.2in the context of the first relation in Eq. (10), if the linear and non-linear components of v4 in Eq. (10) are uncorrelated, then r2_{,2|4} would be expected to be similar to r2_{|2;24}. This is indeed confirmed by the comparisons of theη and centrality
depen-Correlato r 0.8 0.9 1 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 0-5% 3|3;2 r 3|3;2 R ATLAS 5-10% 3|3;2 r 3|3;2 R ATLAS 10-20% 3|3;2 r 3|3;2 R η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Correlator 0.8 0.9 1 ATLAS 20-30% 3|3;2 r 3|3;2 R η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS 30-40% 3|3;2 r 3|3;2 R η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS 40-50% 3|3;2 r 3|3;2 R
Fig. 19 The r3|3;2(η) and R3|3;2(η) in various centrality intervals for Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV. The error bars and shaded boxes are statistical
and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The data points in 40–50% centrality interval are rebinned to reduce the uncertainty
part N 0 100 200 300 400 asy n;2 or F twi n;2 F -2 10 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 twi 2;2 F asy 2;2 F twi 3;2 F asy 3;2 F
Fig. 20 The estimated event-plane twist component Ftwi
n;2 and FB
asymmetry component F_{n}asy_{;2} as a function of Npart for n = 2 and 3
for Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV. The error bars and shaded boxes are statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively
dence of r2_{|2;2} and r2_{,2|4} in Fig.22. Figure22also shows that the η dependence for r4_{|4;1} is stronger than for r2_{|2;2} in all centrality intervals, suggesting that the decorrelation effects are stronger for the linear component ofv4than for the nonlinear component (see Eq. (12)).
A similar study of the influence of the linear and nonlinear effects forv5was also performed, and results are shown in Fig.23. The three observables r2,3|2,3, r2,3|5, and r5_{|5;1}show similar values in all centrality intervals, albeit with large sta-tistical uncertainties.
The decorrelations shown in Figs.21,22and23can be quantified by calculating the slopes of the distributions in
each centrality interval and presenting the results as a func-tion of centrality. Following the example for rn|n;k, the slopes for the mixed-harmonic correlators are obtained via the linear regression procedure of Eqs. (19) and (20):
r2_{,3|2,3}= 1 − 2F_{2}r_{,3|2,3}η, r2_{,2|4}= 1 − 2F_{2}r_{,2|4} η,
r2_{,3|5} = 1 − 2F_{2}r_{,3|5}η. (22)
The results are summarised in Fig.24, with each panel corre-sponding to the slopes of distributions in Figs.21,22, and23, respectively. The only significant difference is seen between F4_{|4;1}and F2_{|2;2}or F2_{,2|4}.
8 Summary
Measurements of longitudinal flow correlations for charged particles are presented in the pseudorapidity range|η| < 2.4 using 7 and 470 µb−1 of Pb+Pb data at √sNN = 2.76 and 5.02 TeV, respectively, recorded by the ATLAS detec-tor at the LHC. The facdetec-torisation of two-particle azimuthal correlations into single-particle flow harmonicsvnis found to be broken, and the amount of factorisation breakdown increases approximately linearly as a function of theη sep-aration between the two particles. The slope of this depen-dence is nearly independent of centrality and pT for n> 2. However, for n= 2 the effect is smallest in mid-central col-lisions and increases toward more central or more peripheral collisions, and in central collisions the effect also depends strongly on pT. Furthermore, the effect is found to be larger
Correlator 0.8 0.9 1 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 470 0-0.1% 2,3|2,3 r 3|3;1 r 2|2;1 r ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 0-5% 2,3|2,3 r 3|3;1 r 2|2;1 r ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 5-10% 2,3|2,3 r 3|3;1 r 2|2;1 r ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 10-20% 2,3|2,3 r 3|3;1 r 2|2;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Correlator 0.8 0.9 1 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 20-30% 2,3|2,3 r 3|3;1 r 2|2;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 30-40% 2,3|2,3 r 3|3;1 r 2|2;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 40-50% 2,3|2,3 r 3|3;1 r 2|2;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 50-60% 2,3|2,3 r 3|3;1 r 2|2;1 r
Fig. 21 The r2,3|2,3(circles) and r2|2;1r3|3;1(squares) as a function ofη for several centrality intervals. The error bars and shaded boxes are statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The r2,3|2,3data in the 50–60% centrality interval are rebinned to reduce the uncertainty
Correlato r 0.8 0.9 1 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 470 0-0.1% 2|2;2 r 4|4;1 r ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 0-5% 2|2;2 r 2,2|4 r 4|4;1 r ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 5-10% 2|2;2 r 2,2|4 r 4|4;1 r ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 10-20% 2|2;2 r 2,2|4 r 4|4;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Correlator 0.8 0.9 1 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 20-30% 2|2;2 r 2,2|4 r 4|4;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 30-40% 2|2;2 r 2,2|4 r 4|4;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 40-50% 2|2;2 r 2,2|4 r 4|4;1 r η 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ATLAS -1 b μ Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, 22 50-60% 2|2;2 r 2,2|4 r 4|4;1 r
Fig. 22 Comparison of r2|2;2, r2,2|4and r4|4;1 for several centrality intervals. The error bars and shaded boxes are statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The data points in some centrality intervals are rebinned to reduce the uncertainty